Search Climate Insights Directory

The document identifies a shift from outright climate denialism to 'strategic skepticism,' where influential entities—including fossil fuel companies and right-wing populist movements—undermine climate action by questioning the economic efficiency and causes of climate change. It highlights that policymakers are primary targets of this disinformation, which is disseminated through social media, corporate sustainability reports, and interpersonal networks. The report argues that this environment erodes public trust in climate science and creates a cycle of political inaction. To combat this, the authors recommend standardized carbon reporting legislation, legal action against 'greenwashing,' the creation of multi-stakeholder coalitions, and the enhancement of scientific and media literacy for both the public and officials.

The report identifies a shift from outright climate denial to 'strategic doubt,' where powerful economic and political actors—including fossil fuel companies and right-wing populist movements—deliberately spread misleading narratives to obstruct climate action. It highlights that policymakers are primary targets of this misinformation, which is disseminated through social media, traditional media, and corporate sustainability reports. This environment erodes public trust and creates a feedback loop of scientific denial and political inaction. The document recommends four key policy interventions: legislation for standardized carbon reporting and content labeling, litigation against greenwashing, the formation of counter-alliances by civil society, and the promotion of scientific and media literacy.

The document identifies a shift from absolute climate denial to 'strategic skepticism,' where powerful economic and political actors intentionally spread misleading narratives to obstruct climate action. It highlights that policymakers are primary targets of this disinformation, which erodes public trust in science and creates a feedback loop of political inaction. To counter this, the report recommends standardized carbon reporting legislation, litigation against greenwashing, the formation of multi-stakeholder coalitions, and enhanced scientific and media literacy.

The International Panel on the Information Environment (IPIE) proposes three primary regulatory interventions for AI in the UK: mandatory human rights impact assessments for high-risk systems, accountability frameworks for Generative AI in elections, and mandatory data access for independent AI auditing to resolve information asymmetries.

The document examines the dual-use nature of AI in peacebuilding, highlighting its potential to improve early warning systems, civic engagement, and humanitarian mapping while warning against risks such as digital repression, algorithmic bias, and the erosion of human oversight. It argues that for AI to support peace rather than instability, it must be governed by human rights principles, transparency, and community participation.

The document explores the dual-use nature of AI in conflict zones, highlighting its potential to improve early warning systems, inclusive dialogue, and humanitarian mapping, while warning against its use for surveillance, disinformation, and repression. It argues that for AI to effectively support peacebuilding, it must be governed by human rights principles, transparency, and local community participation.

The document examines the dual-use nature of AI in conflict zones, highlighting its potential to improve early warning systems, scale digital dialogue, and accelerate humanitarian mapping, while warning against risks of surveillance, misinformation, and algorithmic bias. It argues that AI should complement rather than replace human diplomacy and must be governed by human rights principles and local community engagement.

The document examines how AI can support peacebuilding through early warning systems, digital dialogue, and humanitarian mapping, while warning against risks such as digital surveillance, algorithmic bias, and the amplification of polarization. It argues that AI should be a complementary tool to human diplomacy, requiring governance rooted in human rights and community participation to avoid exacerbating instability.

The report finds that 80% of countries with competitive national elections in 2024 experienced GenAI-related incidents, with 69% of these incidents having a harmful impact. The majority of GenAI use focused on content creation (90%), and nearly half of the incidents (46%) had unknown sources. While some positive uses for civic engagement were noted, the document emphasizes the risks of disinformation and foreign interference, calling for mandatory disclosure standards and improved detection mechanisms.

The report analyzes 215 incidents of generative AI use across 50 countries that held competitive national elections in 2024. It finds that GenAI was present in 80% of these countries, primarily used for creating synthetic content such as deepfake audio and video. A significant majority (69%) of these incidents were categorized as harmful to the electoral process, with 20% attributed to foreign actors, all of whom demonstrated harmful intent. The document emphasizes the challenge of anonymity, as 46% of incidents had unidentifiable authors, and recommends mandatory disclosure norms and improved detection methods to protect democratic integrity.

The report analyzes 215 incidents of GenAI use in 2024 elections across 50 countries, finding that 80% of these countries experienced GenAI-related incidents. The vast majority of use (90%) focused on content creation, and 69% of incidents were classified as harmful. A significant portion of GenAI content (46%) remains unattributed, while 20% is linked to foreign actors, all of whom were found to have harmful intentions. The document advocates for mandatory disclosure and transparency standards to protect electoral processes.

The report analyzes 215 incidents of generative AI (GenAI) use during 2024 national elections across 50 countries. It finds that 80% of these countries experienced GenAI-related incidents, with 90% of cases involving the creation of synthetic content such as audio, images, and video. Approximately 69% of these incidents were classified as harmful, often involving impersonation or disinformation. While 38% of uses were deemed useful—such as for civic outreach or simplifying communications—nearly half of all incidents (46%) came from unknown sources, complicating accountability and transparency.

The report analyzes 215 incidents of GenAI use in 2024 elections, finding that 80% of countries with competitive elections experienced such incidents. The majority of these cases involved content creation (90%) and were deemed harmful to the electoral process (69%). A significant portion of the sources remain unknown (46%), while political candidates (25%) and foreign actors (20%) are the primary identified sources. The document recommends transparency standards and disclosure requirements to protect electoral integrity.

The report finds that GenAI was present in 80% of competitive national elections in 2024, primarily used for creating synthetic content like deepfakes. While some beneficial uses for civic outreach were noted, 69% of incidents were categorized as harmful. A significant portion of GenAI content (46%) remains unattributable to a known source, complicating electoral governance and transparency.

The document analyzes the role of Generative AI in 2024 national elections across 50 countries. It finds that 80% of these countries experienced GenAI incidents, with 90% of those cases involving content creation such as audio, images, and video. A significant portion of these incidents (69%) were classified as harmful to electoral integrity, and nearly half (46%) originated from unknown sources. The report highlights specific examples of misuse in countries like Romania, Bangladesh, and Taiwan, while noting some beneficial uses in Japan. It concludes by recommending mandatory disclosure standards and increased transparency to protect democratic processes.

The 2025 IPIE expert survey reveals growing pessimism regarding the global information environment, with 72% of experts expecting further deterioration. While social networks are seen as drivers of both political polarization and engagement, researchers face significant barriers including self-censorship and harassment. The report advocates for systemic safeguards in the AI era, such as mandatory content labeling and algorithmic audits, to protect the integrity of information supply chains.

The 2025 IPIE Expert Survey reveals increasing pessimism about the global information environment, with 72% of experts expecting further degradation. While social media is seen to both increase political participation and exacerbate polarization, there is a strong expert consensus on the need for AI-generated content labeling and algorithmic auditing. Additionally, the report highlights significant systemic pressures on researchers, including harassment and self-censorship, particularly in developing economies.

The 2025 IPIE Expert Survey reveals increasing pessimism regarding the global information environment, with 72% of experts expecting it to worsen. While social media is seen as a driver of both political polarization and participation, researchers face significant barriers, including harassment and self-censorship. Experts advocate for specific AI safeguards, such as mandatory labeling of synthetic content and periodic algorithmic audits, to protect the reliability of information supply chains.

The 2025 Expert Survey on the Global Information Environment reveals growing pessimism, with 72% of experts expecting the information environment to worsen. The report highlights a complex relationship with social media, where platforms are seen to increase polarization while promoting political participation. It also documents significant 'chilling effects' on researchers, with 73% reporting harassment, self-censorship, or funding fears. To safeguard epistemic security in the AI era, experts recommend clear labeling of AI-generated content and regular algorithmic audits.

The report identifies a shift from outright climate denialism to 'strategic skepticism,' where powerful economic and political actors sow doubt about the feasibility and cost of climate solutions. It highlights that policymakers are primary targets of this misinformation, which is disseminated through corporate reports, lobbies, and social media, ultimately eroding public trust and delaying climate action. The document recommends four key policy levers: standardized carbon reporting legislation, litigation against greenwashing, the creation of multi-stakeholder coalitions, and enhanced science and media literacy.